What new scenarios would you like to see?

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: redcoat

Moreover, I do not think that the CSA would have colonised Central America or the Caribbean. I think that the CSA would have avoided a conflict with Mexico – and therefore stayed out of Latin America. Moreover, I think that the Caribbean would have largely remained under European control. Cuba would either still be a Spanish possession – or it would have liberated itself after a Castro style rebellion. I am assuming that the Spanish–American War hasn’t taken place – because the US and CSA are weaker and more isolationist than the historical United States.

I think that the Confederacy would have been pretty heavily involved in Latin America. It was largely Southerners who conducted all of those filibustering expeditions in Latin America in the 19th century. I assume you've heard of William Walker?

If you use an alt history of Mexico you could have an authoritarian ‘Huerta’ type of regime - or even a quasi-fascist ‘Diaz’ type of regime - in Mexico. Such regimes would have had much more in common with a conservative (presumably segregationist) regime in the CSA – than with the government in the US.

Díaz was sort of an authoritarian technocrat. The US loved him- he was good for business. Huerta tried to be the continuation of that, but never gained support from the US because Wilson was revolted by the murder of Francisco Madero.

Southerners were greatly involved in Latin America. Very true. It you want to go down that road it is fine with me.

Diaz was indeed an authoritarian technocrat ... with a rigid police state. Mussolini admired his work. Foreign business loved him. He was no democrat though.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: redcoat
Diaz was indeed an authoritarian technocrat ... with a rigid police state. Mussolini admired his work. Foreign business loved him. He was no democrat though.

I didn't say that he was. [:)] I'm merely making the point that ideology was not so important. Díaz was supported by the US, but so was Pancho Villa.

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: redcoat
Diaz was indeed an authoritarian technocrat ... with a rigid police state. Mussolini admired his work. Foreign business loved him. He was no democrat though.

I didn't say that he was. [:)] I'm merely making the point that ideology was not so important. Díaz was supported by the US, but so was Pancho Villa.

I'm just making the point that Diaz was no democrat - and not suggesting that you implied that he was [&:]. A hypothetical 'Diaz' type of President may have fallen out of favour with the US - in the same way as Huerta. Diaz himself was long dead before the 1930s.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: redcoat

A hypothetical 'Diaz' type of President may have fallen out of favour with the US - in the same way as Huerta. Diaz himself was long dead before the 1930s.

Right. The point I'm making here is that Huerta was not out of favor because of his ideology, which was much the same as Díaz's. Rather, it was the specific act of murdering Francisco Madero that was the root of his problems.

At any rate, given that the US supported Díaz for years at a time when the United States was dominated by the North, I don't see any reason to think that Mexico would be especially friendly to the Confederacy on the basis of any ideological affinity. Historically, Northern capitalists fueled our support of Díaz. If anything, you'd think that Mexico having a president who was an Indian would have been a hurdle to harmonious Confederate-Mexican relations. Of course, we're most likely talking about a scenario in which the French and Maximilian are able to keep the Conservatives in power, so that means no Diaz; likely some Mexican white from the traditional ruling class in his place.

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: redcoat

A hypothetical 'Diaz' type of President may have fallen out of favour with the US - in the same way as Huerta. Diaz himself was long dead before the 1930s.

Right. The point I'm making here is that Huerta was not out of favor because of his ideology, which was much the same as Díaz's. Rather, it was the specific act of murdering Francisco Madero that was the root of his problems.

At any rate, given that the US supported Díaz for years at a time when the United States was dominated by the North, I don't see any reason to think that Mexico would be especially friendly to the Confederacy on the basis of any ideological affinity. Historically, Northern capitalists fueled our support of Díaz. If anything, you'd think that Mexico having a president who was an Indian would have been a hurdle to harmonious Confederate-Mexican relations. Of course, we're most likely talking about a scenario in which the French and Maximilian are able to keep the Conservatives in power, so that means no Diaz; likely some Mexican white from the traditional ruling class in his place.

Right. The point that I am trying to make is that the ‘cientificos’ – Diaz and Huerta - were dictatorial. It is possible that a hypothetical ‘cientifico’ dictator – in the 1930s - would have fallen out with the US in the same way as Huerta. i.e. For killing the wrong person at the wrong time.

“At any rate, given that the US supported Díaz for years at a time when the United States was dominated by the North, I don't see any reason to think that Mexico would be especially friendly to the Confederacy on the basis of any ideological affinity.”

There is no idealogical reason why a ‘cientifico’ regime should be hostile to the CSA. They would therefore be friendly to the CSA by default.

Diaz couldn’t be used in a 1930s scenario in any event – because he was dead by then. And so his Indian heritage is irrelevant.

“Of course, we're most likely talking about a scenario in which the French and Maximilian are able to keep the Conservatives in power, so that means no Diaz; likely some Mexican white from the traditional ruling class in his place.”

That would be fine with me! Conservative, ‘Cardenas,’ ‘cientifico’ … whatever.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: redcoat
Diaz couldn’t be used in a 1930s scenario in any event – because he was dead by then. And so his Indian heritage is irrelevant.

Well Huerta was an Indian too, although I believe he could actually manage decent Spanish, unlike Porfirio, who supposedly never mastered it fully.

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: redcoat
Diaz couldn’t be used in a 1930s scenario in any event – because he was dead by then. And so his Indian heritage is irrelevant.

Well Huerta was an Indian too, although I believe he could actually manage decent Spanish, unlike Porfirio, who supposedly never mastered it fully.

Yes ... indeed. What has any of this to do with the scenario I suggested?

Are you honestly trying to say that the CSA wouldn't do business with the President of Mexico if was an Indian? LOL. Even more amusing than your storyline with a reactionary regime surviving in Mexico until the 1930s.

Diaz - the Indian - was happy to do business with the US. And what was the US policy towards Indians. Not very nice. And so he would have been more than happy to do business with the CSA. He was quite happy to take anyones money - as I'm sure you are aware.

At the end of the day - the Indian heritage of any Mexican President - dead or alive - is irrelevant as far as the sceanrio is concerned.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: redcoat
Are you honestly trying to say that the CSA wouldn't do business with the President of Mexico if was an Indian?

No.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: redcoat

No … that isn’t my argument at all. I’m arguing the fact that Britain and the US did not maintain massive land armies after the war of 1812 ... or after the British ended their war against Napoleon. I’m saying that after 60 years of peace the US and CSA would have maintained only modest standing armies.

Only if they didn't see war as likely- like Britain and the United States in your example.

A war of re-unification would have been very easy to justify politically.

I dunno. How d'you feel about a 50% tax hike and conscription so we can get Ireland back? No?

It would be much harder to justify a blatantly ‘colonial’ war against Venezuela – in an ‘anti-colonial’ country like the US.

Well, in this period the Americans were already having all sorts of fun and games in that part of the world. Doesn't take much of a leap to overthrow the government and replace them with something nice and pliable.

I like your storyline nearly as much as my ‘re-unification for prosperity’ storyline.

There you go.

It therefore does not have enough time to mobilise its entire population.

I'm not convinced by this. How many men did the USA mobilise between 1940 and 1944? Twelve million? That, in any case, was without really trying all that hard.

Oil was a very significant commodity in the 1930s. It was an oil embargo against the Japanese which ultimately led to their seizure of the oil wells of the Dutch East Indies – and to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Oil was especially important in the US - which had the most advanced and oil dependent economy in the world at that time.

Not being able to buy all at all is very different from just having to import it. Note that Japan only began to look toward the East Indies when the blockade began. Before that, it had all been about China and Russia. They were quite content to buy from the Dutch. Quite why our hypothetical USA can't do the same is unclear.

Did I say anything about the First World War? No … I didn’t.

This hypothetical war would be unique, but it would have a few similarities to other wars (such as the Russian Civil War and Spanish Civil War).

The defensive wasn't all that dominant in the former. Spain, again, is tiny compared with the United States, and certainly wasn't capable of producing all the exciting modern weapons that the Americans are going to come up with.

I’m supposing that the League of Nations does not exist (because a United America does not exist).

That's true; absent Wilson (who was a Virginian), there's no League of Nations.

The Great Powers are free to do as they please – unrestrained by any international talking-shop. And so Britain would be free to impose an oil embargo. Britain controlled the oil resources of the Middle East in the 1930s. British influence would ‘encourage’ other countries to fall into line.

Why would she do that? Hit by the depression just as bad as the United States, and worried by Italian and Japanese aggression, Britain tries to stay on good terms with the USA whilst making pots of money from oil sales.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
No Mexican oil for the Union come wartime.

Yeah. Unfortunately, all this is looking like saying that the USA would be mad to get involved in a war with the Confederacy.

Crackpot scenario concept #476:
The USA, desperate to break out of its dependency on imports from the CSA and Mexico, starts drilling in Alaska. Alarmed, the CSA launches a pre-emptive strike.....

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
No Mexican oil for the Union come wartime.

Yeah. Unfortunately, all this is looking like saying that the USA would be mad to get involved in a war with the Confederacy.

Crackpot scenario concept #476:
The USA, desperate to break out of its dependency on imports from the CSA and Mexico, starts drilling in Alaska. Alarmed, the CSA launches a pre-emptive strike.....

LOL. Personally I think that the whole idea of the CSA surviving until the 1930s is ridiculous. I am truly amazed that you haven't been able to put together an overwhelming historical case against the entire concept!

Back to my original post. I wanted to see a scenario covering a 'second Civil War' in the 1930s. You have pointed out that some other designers - presumably crackpots in your blinkered eyes - have designed scenarios covering this concept. Good for them!

And ... before you ask. I wanted to see such a scenario because I thought that it might make a good wargame - if it was designed by someone with a modicum of creative flair and imagination. As for the storyline. I really don't mind.

My work here is done!

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
No Mexican oil for the Union come wartime.

Yeah. Unfortunately, all this is looking like saying that the USA would be mad to get involved in a war with the Confederacy.

The closer the two are in strength, the less likelihood of a war. I think it's pretty obvious that the Union is going to face some pretty serious obstacles to its continued development once the internal combustion engine becomes important. Unless the Confederacy had been suffering from incredibly bad government during the last half of the 19th century, they'd likely be on about equal terms. Perhaps we'd have seen the US and the Confederacy competing over colonies and markets in Latin America in much the same way that the European powers did in Africa.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: redcoat

LOL. Personally I think that the whole idea of the CSA surviving until the 1930s is ridiculous. I am truly amazed that you haven't been able to put together an overwhelming historical case against the entire concept!

Back to my original post. I wanted to see a scenario covering a 'second Civil War' in the 1930s. You have pointed out that some other designers - presumably crackpots in your blinkered eyes - have designed scenarios covering this concept. Good for them!

You're accusing me of one or two things of which I'm not guilty here.

What I've been trying to do is help you come up with a reasonable alternate history to allow you to have your 1930s clash between the USA and CSA. I don't think it would be a good idea to just put the two on the map and say they're fighting "just because". That would be dull as ditchwater. How can I get interested in the scenario unless I can see a convincing backstory.

Grant could probably come up with an argument for how the south could have survived until 1930. I'll agree that it's unlikely. Certainly the South would have had to have changed a lot.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

The closer the two are in strength, the less likelihood of a war. I think it's pretty obvious that the Union is going to face some pretty serious obstacles to its continued development once the internal combustion engine becomes important.

I don't think a lack of a domestic source of oil is a serious obstacle. See the advances made by numerous countries in just such a position in the 20th century. Germany's probably the best example. This only becomes a problem in wartime.

I could see the USA being hindered for other reasons, though. For one, a USA which has just used its migrants to fight this bloody and ultimately futile war is going to be a less popular destination for Europeans. If the South goes on to free the slaves sometime after the Civil War (which seems like a necessity for their long-term survival), then perhaps they begin to rival the Union for immigration (especially if they have all these territories to fill in the southwest). Also if Cuba is added as a state around the turn of the century, that's going to add about four million more Confederate citizens by the mid-30s.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: nelmsm

Well I meant the 21st Army Group. Wouldn't they have been cut off in Belgium/Holland if the Germans reached Antwerp?

Right. But you're talking about twenty plus divisions here. They'd break out.

Or stay put. Losing Antwerp would be inconvenient -- not the kiss of death.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

I'd like to see a scenario covering fighting on Guadalcanal.


Drax

For that, you'd definitely want at least a revision of TOAW so it could handle 1 km/hex. Also, a better naval/air model...

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: redcoat

LOL. Personally I think that the whole idea of the CSA surviving until the 1930s is ridiculous. I am truly amazed that you haven't been able to put together an overwhelming historical case against the entire concept!

Back to my original post. I wanted to see a scenario covering a 'second Civil War' in the 1930s. You have pointed out that some other designers - presumably crackpots in your blinkered eyes - have designed scenarios covering this concept. Good for them!

You're accusing me of one or two things of which I'm not guilty here.

What I've been trying to do is help you come up with a reasonable alternate history to allow you to have your 1930s clash between the USA and CSA. I don't think it would be a good idea to just put the two on the map and say they're fighting "just because". That would be dull as ditchwater. How can I get interested in the scenario unless I can see a convincing backstory.

Grant could probably come up with an argument for how the south could have survived until 1930. I'll agree that it's unlikely. Certainly the South would have had to have changed a lot.

OK. I thought you were just rubbishing the concept. I'm glad that you were not.

I hope that we have now all established that a 'reasonable alternative history' is feasible.

All I would like to see now is a good wargame based upon the concept.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Or stay put. Losing Antwerp would be inconvenient -- not the kiss of death.

Well, we can't supply twenty plus divisions by air. Maybe five- given good weather. Clearly they'd have to break back into contact with the rest of France.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: redcoat

All I would like to see now is a good wargame based upon the concept.

Right. Well I suggest you start by finding a map....

As they say, if you want something done properly, do it yourself.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Grant could probably come up with an argument for how the south could have survived until 1930. I'll agree that it's unlikely. Certainly the South would have had to have changed a lot.

I'll admit that I don't see why this is unlikely if our starting point is a Confederate victory in the Civil War. The sooner this comes, the less economic damage has been done to the South. No March to the Sea, no Sheridan denuding the Shenandoah, etc. In addition to this, having let the Confederacy become established as a sovereign nation, it's going to be much harder to reconquer it later on. Then there's also the question of whether or not the North has the will to attempt to do so at all. It would have lost the war in the first place because of a failure of political will. Where does the political will come from to try and reconquer the South at a later time? Radical President from New England exploits an American Dolchstosslegende to radicalize the Yankee volk against hook-nosed Southerners?

As for the South changing, I think everyone makes the assumption that it wouldn't- without much basis. This is especially surprising given the current situation in the United States, which sees the South growing at the expense of the Northeast and the Rust Belt, and the South dominating the political life of the country.

The South had its own technocrats, industrialists, and pragmatic centralizers. I think something like the boll weevil infestations which devastated cotton crops in the 1870s would have led to them becoming ever more powerful. This is about what happened historically- look at the development of Birmingham, Alabama. I'm assuming that this process would have been more pronounced than it was historically without the South having been economically devastated in the Civil War and not being controlled by Northern interests.